USTomorrow | You Spoke — Now Let’s Talk Solutions

We received lots of feedback from readers after the Kelly Hall story from last week

Last week, I asked a simple question: How does a candidate win by nearly 20 points without really running a campaign?

I promised I had theories. But first, I wanted to hear from you.

And you delivered.

Heads up: If this topic resonates with you, there’s a couple of opportunities to learn more linked below. Join if you can.

---

You’ve Seen This Before

The response from readers was thoughtful, personal, and, in the best way, a little heartbreaking. It confirmed what I suspected: the Kelly Hall story isn’t an anomaly. It’s a pattern. And many of you have watched it play out up close.

M, put it plainly:

“I read about that Hall election and my heart sank. I think we simply stopped paying attention to elections and the process and now we are seeing the results. Another unfortunate result here in Bexar County. We simply must do a better job of creating voters who seek to be informed about candidates. League of Women Voters has our Voters Guide and we distribute 50,000 in both English and Spanish. The TX Trib does a voters guide, our local SA Report does a voters guide. Anecdotally people tell us they read at least one of those to get informed — but obviously not enough.”

O. spoke to something even more fundamental — the real-world constraints on civic engagement:

“My husband and I read the background and platforms of every candidate. Also every bill put forth, outlining the pros and cons. It doesn’t require a lot of time — but most people have their noses to the grindstone to pay bills, feed their families, and maybe catch an episode of a favorite show at the end of the day. It is sad but true. You pointed out that sometimes their decisions are based on race, gender, affiliations, or if they are good looking should they even make it to the polls. Sad but true.”

C. brought up a powerful and specific example — one that illustrates just how consequential name-based and identity-based voting can be in down-ballot races:

“It has happened in the past and it has happened in several cases this election. If you remember Tim Sulak — who was an experienced judge — he ran for reelection in 2016, when Hillary was on the ballot. Basically young women voted for the woman on the ballot and he lost. I think women are as qualified and many times more qualified to be elected, but I try to look at qualifications versus sex. People who don’t research candidates should be very cautious voting in races just because of the name.”

And Sharon Lawrence— who spent nearly a decade working in the elections industry — highlighted our last newsletter publicly and added her own expertise over at her Substack. She wrote:

“You raised an issue that has frustrated me for over two decades so I was thrilled to see this post!”

Sharon Lawrence has been writing thoughtfully on these similar issues for years. I encourage you to follow her work: sharonlawrence.substack.com

The common thread running through all of this feedback? Our system, as currently designed, makes it far too easy for uninformed choices to drown out informed ones — especially in primaries. Which brings me to the good news.

There are real solutions. And one of them is elegant in its simplicity.

---

What If the Top Three Advanced?

Among the most compelling responses I received came from J., who cut right to it:

“Do away with primaries by party and have one primary. Top three are in the final election, most votes wins.”

I love this idea — and not just because it would have helped me personally (more on that in a moment). There are a lot of reasons why we need to look at changing the system.

A combined, nonpartisan primary where the top three vote-getters advance to the general election would fundamentally change the incentives in our political system. Here’s why it matters.

Go back to Texas House District 19. Under a top-three system, Kelly Hall — who spent $750 and ran no campaign — would almost certainly not have been one of the three finalists. Javier Andrade, the Army veteran and cybersecurity professional endorsed by the Austin American-Statesman, would have made it to the general election. Voters who had no idea there was a primary - or no intention of voting in it - would have gotten a second opportunity to do due diligence and weigh in during the general election.

It would have helped me too. In HD47, I ran a real campaign. I knocked on doors, raised money, built a coalition. Under a top-three primary system, I would have advanced to the general — where a much broader and more informed electorate would have decided the outcome. That’s how it should work– even if I lose, at least more folks will get a voice.

And then there’s Ken Paxton.

In the 2026 Texas Senate race, Paxton — the indicted Attorney General — finished fourth in the primary (if you combined them, he was fourth behind Talarico, Crocket and Cornyn. Under a top-three system, he would not have made it to the November ballot, not to mention the ongoing potential for a bruising, divisive, and expensive GOP primary runoff or the meddling of a fickle President.

Many of my Republican friends told me they felt torn during the primary: they wanted to vote for me in HD47, but felt their higher calling was to vote in the GOP primary specifically to keep Paxton off the Senate ballot in November. A combined primary resolves that tension entirely. You don’t have to choose your tribe over your conscience.

A top-three combined primary doesn’t eliminate competition. It expands it. It gives voice to the voters in the middle — independents, crossover voters, people who don’t neatly fit into either party’s base — and it rewards candidates who can build broad coalitions rather than just mobilize the hyper-partisan minority of the electorate that currently decides primary results.

It’s not a perfect system. No system is. But it’s a serious improvement over what we have now.

Unfortunately, the very elected officials required to change the laws are in power now and could give up that power if the combined primary system were implemented, so unfortunately, there is little will to fix it.

---

The Independents Are Coming

Here’s the thing: the frustrations that lead to elections like the Kelly Hall outcome — and the solutions readers like J. are proposing — aren’t fringe ideas anymore. They’re the emerging mainstream.

According to new research from Builders, nearly half of all Americans now identify as political independents.

Let that sink in. Half the country doesn’t feel represented by either major party.

And it’s not hard to understand why. When a winner-take-all primary system — stacked on top of gerrymandered districts — consistently produces candidates who appeal to the ideological extremes, voters in the broad middle have a rational response: they disengage, or they opt out of the party label entirely.

The rise of independents isn’t just a polling curiosity. It’s a signal. People aren’t abandoning their civic values — they’re abandoning the vehicles that no longer reflect them. And that creates a genuine opening for a different kind of politics: one built around competence, integrity, and the ability to actually govern.

Which brings me to two friends of mine who are doing exactly that.

---

Two Leaders Worth Your Attention

Seth Bodnar — U.S. Senate, Montana (Independent)

Up in Montana, my friend Seth Bodnar is running for the United States Senate — as an independent.

Seth is a West Point graduate, a Rhodes Scholar, and a former Army Ranger. He’s also the former president of the University of Montana. He brings exactly the kind of record and character that voters say they want — and he’s betting that enough Montanans are ready to elect someone who doesn’t owe a party anything.

---

Mayor Jim Penniman-Morin — Cedar Park, Texas (Re-Election)

Closer to home, my good friend and fellow Army veteran Mayor Jim (as many hall him) is running for re-election in Cedar Park.

Jim is a West Point graduate who has brought the same discipline and integrity to leading Cedar Park that he brought to serving our country. He’s exactly the kind of local leader that makes democracy work at the ground level — the kind who actually shows up, does the homework, and earns your vote.

I’ll be co-hosting a fundraiser for Jim next week, and I’d love to see you there. If you can’t make it in person, you can send your financial support directly. RSVP or donate here.

Local elections are where the rubber meets the road. Cedar Park deserves a leader like Jim, and races like his are often decided by small margins. Your support matters.

---

The Thread Connecting All of This

Reader feedback. Combined primaries. The rise of independents. Friends running as the kind of candidates we say we want.

These aren’t disconnected stories. They’re different angles on the same challenge: a political system that too often produces outcomes that don’t reflect what most Americans actually want — and a growing movement of people determined to change that.

Democracy doesn’t fix itself. It gets fixed by informed voters, better rules, and people willing to step up and run.

You’re already doing your part by reading and thinking carefully. Now let’s keep pushing.

As always — reply and let me know what you’re seeing out there.

Joseph Co-Founder of USTomorrow